Haryana

Karnal

502/2011

Parveen Kumar S/o Kashmiri Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aviva Life Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Vikash Chauhan

12 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No. 502 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.: 18.08.2011

                                                          Date of decision:23.12.2015

 

Parveen Kumar son of Sh.Kashmiri Lal, resident of V& P.O. Padha tehsil Assandh district Karnal.

                                                                                       ……..Complainant.   

                                      Vs.

1.Aviva Life Insurance SCO No.242, IInd Floor, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal through Sh.Satnam Singh Sr.Branch Manager.

2.Shamsher Singh, Branch Manager, Aviva Life Insurance SCO No.242, IInd  Floor, Sector 12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

3.T.R.Ramachandran, Chief Executive Officer & Managing Director, Aviva Life Insurance Aviva Tower, Sector Road, Opp. Golf Course, DLF Phase V, Sector 43, Gurgaon.

                                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                    Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.Vikas Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Vineet Rathor Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:

 

 

                  This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the averments that agent/Sales Manager of the Opposite Parties ( in short Ops) Sh.Sudama Vashisht  approached him at  village Padha   and told that if he would deposit the premium of Rs.25000/- per annum for three years regularly in the policy of   Aviva Life Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company would pay the double of the aforesaid amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith other benefits.  On that assurance, he obtained policy No.ALS2080796 Plan on 11.7.2008 and paid the first installment on the same day. After waiting a lot when no policy was sent to him , he contacted Sh.Sudama Vashisht,  who assured that policy would be sent to him very soon, but the same was not received. However, he paid second premium to Sh.Sudama Vashisht on 20.11.2009, but Sh.Sudama Vashisht postponed the matter of issuing policy on one pretext or the other. The third premium was deposited by him in the office of Ops on 9.12.2010 and on enquiry he was told that  the company had issued the policy and the term of the policy was 15 years and not three years as told by Sh.Sudama Vashisht.   It was not possible for the complainant to continue for such long period ,therefore, he wrote letter dated  25.2.2011 to the OPs requesting for  sending the policy so that he could claim his right as per  terms and conditions of the policy.  In response to the said letter, the OPs sent duplicate policy on 2.4.2011 alongwith forwarding letter dated 25.3.2011 .On receiving the policy for the first time on 2.4.2011 he read over the terms and conditions of the policy, wherein it was mentioned that policy term was fifteen years and in case policy holder did not want to continue he could apply for free look i.e. for return of the money deposited by him under the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. So, he offered to apply for free look and returned the duplicate policy to the OP No.3 through courier, requesting to   return his amount.  He also sent e-mail on 4.4.2011, which was replied by the OPs on 7.4.2011. The OP No.2 telephonically informed him that company had accepted the free look option and assured to return the amount within ten days.  On 12.4.2011, he again  sent e-mail  regarding processing of free look applied for by him, but the Ops No.2 and 3  refused to return the said amount to him.  On 15.4.2011 he sent e-mail to Ops. On 21.4.2011, the OP No.3 asked for sending acknowledgement regarding  no  receipt  of policy earlier and in response to that he sent his letter dated 25.2.2011 to the OP No.3 on 21.4.2011, but the Ops flatly refused to  return the amount. Such act on the part of the OPs amounted to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental harassment apart from financial loss.

 

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.

 

                             On merits, it has been submitted that  in the present dispute cause of action arose in  July 2008 when the complainant signed the proposal form, whereas he complained about mis-selling on 23.3.2011 much after the period of two years, therefore, the complaint is not within limitation. It has further been pleaded that complainant was at liberty to go through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on receipt of the policy documents within a period of fifteen days as required under IRDA (Protection of policy holder’s interest) Regulation 2002, but he did not raise any objection during that period. The policy bearing No. ALS2080796 was issued to the complainant and the same was delivered to  him vide speed post bearing No. EHO15048092IN on 15.7.2008.The complainant paid the premium during 2008, 2009 and 2010.However, he failed to p ay premium for the term 2011 and as a result of  which the status of the said policy was changed into inforce notice period and finally the policy status changed to Auto force  closure  mode on 11.7.2010.  The complainant  failed to deposit the premium and  the surrender value of the policy was less than first year’s  premium. The policy was closed on 11.7.2011 as per terms and conditions of Auto Force closure and the amount of surrender value on the date of foreclosure i.e. Rs.25000/- was sent to the complainant vide cheque No. 607406 dated  13.9.2011.  The  complainant for the first time complained  vide letter dated 25.02.2011 and E-mail dated 22.3.2011 seeking policy documents and the OP taking Customer Centric approach  provided duplicate policy documents. Thereafter, the complainant vide letter dated 11.4.2011 requested to refund the amount as he was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the said policy. The Ops replied vide letter dated 14.4.2011 that policy documents had been dispatched on 15.7.2008 through speed post vide airway bill No.EHO15048092IN and the same was delivered to the complainant  on 16.7.2008.  No request for cancellation was received during the free look period. It is clearly established that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the policy and he paid three premiums without raising any objection.  Even the proposal form clearly shows that policy premium  paying term was fifteen years and the complainant had duly signed the said proposal form.  In this way, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.

 

3.                 In evidence of the complainant, affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C39 have been tendered.

 

4.                 On the other hand in evidence of the Ops, affidavit Watan Kumar Bhajanka, Senior Executive Legal, Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1/B to Ex.OP1/H have been tendered.

 

5.                 We have appraised the evidence on record,  the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

 

6.                 The complainant had obtained the policy of Aviva life Insurance Company and  he had deposited first premium  of Rs.25000/ on 11.7.2008, second premium on 20.11.2009 and third premium on 9.12.2010 of the same amount.  Thereafter, he wrote letter dated 25.2.2011 to the Ops requesting for sending the policy and in response thereto Ops sent duplicate policy on 2.4.2011. Thereafter, he offered to apply for free look, returned the duplicate policy to OP No.3 and requested for refund of his amount.  As per allegations of the complainant Sh.Sudama Vashisht agent of the Ops had represented him that policy was for three years and the insurance company would pay him the double of the amount of Rs.75000/- alongwith other benefits after expiry of three years. It has further been alleged that he did not receive the policy and Sh.Sudama Vashisht postponed the matter regarding issuance of the policy on one pretext or the other, therefore, he sent letter dated 25.2.2011 to the Ops for sending the policy and after receiving the duplicate policy and going through the terms and conditions of the same, found that policy was for fifteen years and then he applied for free look and refund of his amount.

 7.                             The Ops have asserted that policy was sent to the complainant vide speed post on 15.7.2008 and the same was delivered to him on 16.7.2008.He could apply for free look within fifteen days of the receipt of the policy, but he deposited the second and three premiums also  without any objection and did not apply for free look within a period of fifteen days. It has further been averred that the complainant was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, because even in the proposal form, filled up by the complainant, the term of the policy was  prescribed as fifteen years. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is whether the complainant had knowledge from the very beginning that term of the policy was 15 years.

 

8.                 It is important to point out that the complainant has not  disputed the factum of submission of the proposal form for issuance of the policy. The copy of the proposal form is Ex.OP1/B. The complainant has not denied his signatures on the same. He has given a declaration in the proposal form and that too in his hand writing in Hindi that he has understood the contents of the proposal form in Hindi. Therefore, it cannot be said that contents of the proposal form were not read over and explained to him before obtaining his signatures thereon. Clause 5 of the proposal form is most material, wherein details of the plan applied for have been mentioned. Clauses 5.1 to 5.6 make it quite clear that term of the plan  accepted by the complainant was fifteen years, premium  paying  term was fifteen years, annual premium was Rs.25000/- and the sum assured was Rs.2,75,000/-. The complainant had  put signatures on three places  against the entries of the said clause 5 of the proposal form. Therefore, it stands proved that the complainant was fully aware at the time of submitting proposal form that term of the policy was fifteen years and he was to pay annual premium of Rs.25000/- each and the total sum assured was Rs.2,75,000/-. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he was not aware of the term of the policy and was misrepresented by Sh.Sudama Vashisht, who was agent of the Ops, cannot be accepted.

 

9.                 The OPs specifically pleaded that the copy of the policy  bearing No. ALS2080796 was issued to the complainant and the same was delivered to  him, vide speed post bearing No. EHO15048092IN on 15.7.2008. Affidavit of Sh.Watan Kumar Bhajanka Ex.OP,/A is also to the same effect. In the letters dated 5.3.2011, 14.4.2011 and 3.3.2011 Ex.OP1/F to Ex.OP1/H  respectively, also the OPs mentioned the same fact regarding sending of the policy to the complainant, vide speed post dated 15.7.2008. However, the complainant has led no evidence, which may show that the said speed post was not delivered to him.  Moreover, the complainant deposited the second and third premiums without any objection. Had he not received the copy of the policy, as a man of ordinary prudence, he would not have deposited the second and third premiums. This conduct of the complainant   goes against him and the same lends support to the plea of the OPs that policy was delivered to him by speed post dated 15.7.2008.

 

  10.               According to the policy, the complainant could avail of the option of free look within fifteen days of the receipt of the policy, however, he did not avail that facility within time.  No doubt,  he sent letter to the OPs  on 25.2.2011 and e-mail dated 22.3.2011 seeking policy documents and immediately after receiving the duplicate copy of the policy, sent letter dated 11.4.2011 for refund of the amount, but the facts and circumstances of the case show that the complainant was aware of the term of the policy as fifteen years from very beginning and  with ulterior motive to avail the facility of free look, after depositing three premiums, sent letter to the Ops for  supplying the policy documents. The contention of the complainant for applying for policy documents after three years cannot be considered as bonafide by any stretch of imagination. Therefore, we have no hesitation in observing that the complainant had knowledge of the term of the policy as fifteen years on the date of submitting proposal form and he cannot avail the facility of the option of free look on the ground of term of the policy as fifteen years, after obtaining the duplicate copy of the policy after three years  of obtaining the policy. Consequently, the insurance company was not liable to refund entire amount of three premiums deposited by the complainant  and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant was  entitled to surrender value of the policy, which was paid by the Ops. Therefore, there was no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

11.               As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and consequently the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly land the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:23.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma ) 

   Member.

.H

 

 

Present:-       Sh.Vikas Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh.Vineet Rathor Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:23.12.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

(Anil Sharma ) 

   Member.H